I think David Post is engaging in more than a bit of wishful thinking in his post below. We know he's not a Palin fan, was never a potential McCain supporter, and doesn't exactly have his finger on the pulse of contemporary conservative thinking. There's not "something of a drumbeat building" for a Palin withdrawal (at least not yet). Some conservatives were down on Palin from the beginning, so it should be no surprise that a stray columnist or two — even one who had her article posted on NRO — thinks Palin should pull out after her poor (and occasionally painful) interview performances.
For a better sense of mainstream conservative thinking about Palin right now, I'd point to this Kathryn Lopez column on NRO, which expresses concerns about Gov. Palin, but is not yet ready to throw her overboard. Here is how she concludes:
I’m not where my friend Kathleen Parker is — wanting her to step aside to spend more time with her family and Alaska — but that’s not a crazy suggestion. She's right to say that something’s gotta change.Interestingly, K-Lo's recommendations are quite similar to those offered by Bill Kristol this morning.My guess — based on nothing but hope for a change — is that Sarah Palin just needs some freedom. I don’t know who is holding her back but if John McCain wants to win this thing it had better not be him and his staff. When I watch these interviews, I see a woman who looks like she’s stayed up all night studying and is trying to remember the jurisprudential chronology of privacy vis-a-vis reproduction, the war on terror, and public figures (add 12 more things, described in the most complicated way possible, to the list to be more accurate). She looks like a woman who’s been cramming talking points and great Matt Scully lines and Mark Salter-McCain war stories and Steve Schmidt marching orders into her head since that first plane ride from Alaska. She looks like a woman who has ceased being the confident, successful executive who got herself elected governor of Alaska without the full force of her party behind her and managed to have an approval rating of which most can’t even dream.
This seems wholly unnecessary. People love Sarah Palin when they see her. When she’s firing at full force, she comes off as authentic, self-possessed, and ready for a fight. If that is Sarah Palin, that’s the Sarah Palin who should be talking to everyone she can. . . .
If Sarah Palin is John McCain’s secret weapon, let her go, whoever is holding her back. And, frankly, if it turns out that the “authentic” Palin of rallies and the Republican convention is just good speech delivery in a woman with some good spirit, I want to know that sooner rather than later. (Mitt’s still available. Someone in Washington who can actually run a business and knows something about the economy will come in handy once the federal government owns the U.S. banking system.) But if the Palin we know and love and have projected our hopes for sanity in American politics is the real Sarah Palin — then come out from the shadows, woman. You’re the one who is going to win this election. Be yourself. Otherwise, what’s the point?
McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her — aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she’s a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice. . . .I think this is right. This year's vice-presidential debate will matter far more than most, largely due to lingering questions about Palin. But I also believe that a strong Palin performance will put these concerns to rest among those for whom this matters (i.e. those who, unlike David, might vote for McCain), and reinforce the meme that the mainstream press is out to get her (and help elect Obama). Selectively edited TV interviews will not have the same force as an unedited debate.That debate is important. McCain took a risk in choosing Palin. If she does poorly, it will reflect badly on his judgment. If she does well, it will be a shot in the arm for his campaign.
As for what will happen, Kristol reports Senator McCain is unhappy with how the McCain has been handling her, and is demanding changes. Byron York also has this interesting post.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming (and try to keep the comments civil).
UPDATE: In the comments below, David objects to my claim that he "was never a potential McCain supporter," explaining that and might have supported McCain given a different vice presidential choice. He writes:
I was a (strong) supporter of McCain's during the Republican primaries, and I was genuinely delighted that he won the nomination; I actually had not decided for whom to vote in the general election until the Palin nomination, which I believed, and still believe, was an irresponsible, outrageous, and unpatriotic act on McCain's part.I based my characterization of his views based on his disclosure in this post that he was "not voting" for McCain. I took this to mean that David had decided to not support McCain prior to the Palin decision.
As for myself, I am still somewhat undecided -- both about whom I will support come November and what to make of Gov. Palin. Her Couric interview performance was atrocious, but I've seen plenty of other interviews (and debate performances) that give a very different impression. I also know several people who have found her quite impressive in person. So, at this point, while objecting to anti-Palin arguments I find unfounded and unpersuasive -- and noting that many of the attacks on her are equally applicable to Senator Obama and others -- I'm withholding my final judgment about her and the GOP ticket.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Palin Problems:
- Palin to Withdraw!
That Gibson interview may have been "selectively edited" (is there any other type of editing other than selective?), but what you don't point out is that many of the edited portions make Palin look worse, not better.
But I think the McCain campaign got on her case because her answers were giving the opponents the sound bites to bury her ("I can see Russia from land in Alaska" which she amended with "an island in Alaska", but of course ABC edited that latter part out). I think that's when they drilled her with the "proper" responses to specific questions. But we all know that doesn't work very well.
It was disheartening to listen to her lately with what seems like memorized lines. Repeating a line word for word, a few times in the same interview, is just creepy. I've watched her interviews and debates before she started running for vice-president, and she is more than capable of holding her own.
So, I think McCain's campaign should let Palin free. If her position differs from McCain, let her say so. Most conservatives hew more finely with her positions than with McCain's anyway. They can show it as a healthy disagreement within the ticket that they're both aware of, with deference to the top of the ticket of course. But let her be.
(By the way, I don't understand why you think she's this great libertarian either. In part 2 of the Couric interview, she talks about how we need government oversight of "predatory lenders" and she also enacted a windfall profits tax on oil companies. OK, she likes hunting. But is that all you're going on?)
So: what, in your view, would constitute "a strong Palin performance"? And (assuming that you are among those who have "lingering questions" about Palin): What are the questions that you still have about her, and what might get you to settle on answers to those questions?
I would like to get rid of all the policians who give bad answers to questions about the bailout. But then, who would be left?
What is sad is that people would value knowledge of guns and football more than knowledge of foreign affairs when picking the people that lead our nation. I think Mencken had something to say about that.
I am not sure if you are aware of this, but the process of editing involves selecting what stays and what goes, and even rearranging things. Selective editing is redundant.
The entire interview transcript was available, so I don't see any misdealing. This is especially true considering that nothing great was edited out.
Finally, Gibson is far from "liberal."
She's become the emblem of The Republican Base to a lot of bloggers/media types. As in, if she expresses any sort of concern about a Republican, then The Base is REALLY concerned.
Now, absolutely she is fanatically loyal to the party line, but it sort of sucks to be used so ruthlessly by the other side whenever she has an independent thought.
Yes, it is sad that we live in a democracy - for now - and the unwashed peasants get to vote. Fortunately our ruling elite is in the process of dissolving the people and forming a new one via unchecked immigration.
I love Monday morning strawmen.
Her weaknesses are that she does not yet know much about foreign policy; that she is an Outsider and so subject to incredible scrutiny; she hasn't leaarned to speak "politician" where lips move but nothing comes out.
Palin's instincts and judgment are right. I think she'll do fine in the debate.
Even if McCain loses, she'll be back on the national stage. She'll win if she runs for Senator (for example, for Stevens' seat in six years, after two full terms as governor). By 2016 or 2020 she'll be leading the Republican Party.
First, I wonder if this really matters much. Who, honestly, votes based on who the VP is? Suppose Palin does well in the debate -- doesn't say anything stupid, gets off a good one-liner or two. Do anybody really think that a bunch of independents will say, "well, she's not as dumb as I thought -- I'm switching from Obama to McCain!" On the other hand, if she doesn't come off well, also so what? Dan Quayle got elected VP after being widely perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a dolt and having been the victim of the most famously cutting line ever in a VP debate apparently didn't sway many votes.
Second, I understand the talking point that Palin sounded better before she got stuffed full of talking points. But isn't it a problem that some of the things that made her sound good were, on reflection, simply untrue (at least in significant part)? See, e.g., her alleged position on the "bridge to nowhere." It's harder to sound good if people check what you say. Also, don't we think that a VP has to show that she is capable of handling more than provincial Alaskan politics?
As a lifelong democratic liberal who wanted to vote for a democrat this election, I feel terribly disappointed because it seems to me that somebody with less than 170 working days spent as a senator is qualified to be president or vice president so I'll just have to vote McCain.
(Of course I'm not a democrat or a liberal but as long as we're going to do some unpaid astroturfing of talking points here, we might as well make it conform to the astroturf stylebook, right?)
The actual choice is between a presidential candidate who is wildly unqualified if experience is any measure, and one that is better prepared by experience to be president than any candidate we have had since Nixon or Johnson (pick your poison). It's entertaining to me that Veep candidate Palin's lack of experience is why all these 'lifelong conservatives' are going to vote for a presidential candidate who probably still has trouble finding the men's room in the Capitol. There is something deeply implausible about that argument.
It's not the "experience" factor that have people worried about Palin. It's the "is she smart, knowledgeable, and intellectually curious," problem. You can believe that Palin has those factors over Obama, but you would be in the small minority.
McCain and his base consider leadership and good judgment as equivalent to taking a position and sticking to it. American politics is brutal to people who admit they were wrong, even years ago. If Palin withdraws, thanks to all this speculation everyone will know it's under pressure from the campaign, and McCain's judgment will be fatally called into question. Besides, the enthusiasm she generated among the Pentecostal/Evangelical base will be all gone. McCain would be lucky to break 100 EVs, whoever he put in.
Palin was always a gamble. It looks like a losing one, but the die has been cast.
Now of course as myself, and not being a VP candidate, I would say:
Which is why no one will ever nominate me. :)
Also, it is funny to note that if Palin were a rising star liberal woman who aborted her down syndrome baby, rallied against guns, and chained herself to trees in the name of the environment, the media reception would be much different. She would be "breaking the glass cieling to a million shards," "be the death knell to the male patriarchy in Washinton, "showing how women are getting there foot into the door of a man-run world," and to disspell any questions of qualification - "of course she isn't qualified, men simply won't let women into positions where they could become qualified for such a job."
The media and its liberal supplicants are full of such cr**.
For either to do that should (I believe would) irreparably destroy the ticket. It would so call into question the decision making that went into the choice to begin with that the candidate would simply be unfit on that basis alone for the Presidency.
Note that in the above response I am not asserting or denying anything I may have done personally, only presenting a context in which I might have had to gain experience or exercise judgment, which I suggest I would have had without saying so.
Palin should have someone suggest such language in case the matter comes up again, as it probably will. But I have no input into her campaign.
Palin did not implement a windfall tax. She renegotiated the state's contract with the oil companies. The state sells the oil to the companies. Palin rightly figured that the existing arrangement screwed the Alaskans (who own the oil) due to oil company lobbying of officials. That's analogous to you having a product X and figuring you can get a greater profit by selling it at a higher price. A windfall tax, in contrast, is a post-hoc tax on a profit obtained under previous arrangements.
It's funny how one of the strongest talking points about McCain is his lack of support from his own party in Congress.
What is the actual concrete evidence for Obambi's smartness, knowledge and intellectual curiosity? Articles he has written? Cases he worked on? Anything from his law practice, lecturer job, time in the state legislature? Far as I can tell, his written track record is extraordinarily scanty, and I am surprised this doesn't ring more alarm bells in the legal community (which, of all groups, ought to understand how bizarre it is that this guy has gotten as far as he has without ever apparently having written anything that one can point to as evidence of his intellectual acuity).
How about Obama's embrace of market-based environmental regulation? Support for the death penalty, including in cases of child rape? Lowering of taxes for 95% of Americans? Insistence that African American fathers take responsibility for their children? Support for welfare reform? Campaign finance reform? Anything registering, or nobody home?
Well since you are asking a serious question...oh, wait a second. No you aren't. You said "Obambi."
Well, it's about as skimpy as W.s record when he was running for prez in 2000. But that didn't stop all those people from voting for him, did it?
You forget that conservatives don't like John McCain much. A lot of people were either going to sit out this election or vote reluctantly for McCain. Palin actually excited the base and gave us a reason to vote this November.
That said, I agree that dumping Palin at this point would be political suicide. Even a "voluntary" withdrawal by Palin would have the same effect. That leaves open the question of whether she needs to be prepped or "allowed to be herself." I think a series of "I don't know" and "I haven't had enough time to study the issue" would not play well with an electorate that has been taught since the primaries that the biggest question about Obama is his readiness to answer the 3am phone call. If she can't "fake it" at least as well as Obama--which so far she has not been able to do--this will be a huge negative for McCain.
On the other hand, she is winning the "low expectations" game, and if she survives the debate looking poised and competent, there is hope yet. If she comes off as poorly in the debates as she did in the interviews, I think McCain is toast.
You have your press releases mixed up, and I think this one is meant for next year at this time. In future, check with the Home Office before publishing material that could damage the reputation of the Party.
Enemies of the normal abound in this election. Palin's normal, so she has to be stopped. I don't think anyone's arguments about Palin have anything to do with experience, specific knowledge on finance of foreign policy, or anything. They hated her before they really knew her because what they saw in her was enough to enrage them: her normalcy.
Randy: So you voted for Bush? Or was that an issue then but not now? Why would you even write this when Bush's example would be a reason to vote against Obama? Arguing that Bush and Obama are similar seems like the very last thing you'd want to do
Seriously? I really, honestly ask that you provide me ONE example of a female political figure who is known to have aborted a Down Syndrome baby, or to have chained herself to a tree, (or something similar) and who is treated admiringly by the "mainstream" media.
Perhaps, instead, you mean: "Had Palin (secretly) aborted her baby, she'd be a media darling." Again: seriously? Can you offer any substantive support for the claim that Palin - Trig = media darling?
So what is Joe Biden going to talk about on Thursday?
If Obama was so smart, he'd know that ≈⅓ of filers pay zero or negative federal income tax, and another 15 million do not file federal returns. That means that if 95% of Americans get a tax cut, then nearly 40% get a free check from Uncle Sam. Oh wait...I guess that's his point.
You guys are cheap dates. No offense.
So, ya got nothin', huh? That's what I thought.
But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Just go get an example.
When the New York Times publishes glowing articles from a columnist about how glad she was to abort 2 of her triples so she wouldn't be forced to buy mayonnaise at Costco, you can bet that Palin would be a media darling if she aborted Trig. The MSM loves abortion.
More than 80 percent of Downs Syndrome diagnosed babies are aborted. The MSM has the same general sympathy towards eugenics in this regard as the rest of America. But Palin makes them feel guilty, so she's attacked.
It's really not so hard.
In part, I think Obama is intellectually curious because his answers are ... yes ... nuanced, and show that he understands the other side of the debate.
I also note that he got high marks from colleagues and students with whom he disagreed, both in politics and academia, for being fairminded and balanced in his approach.
What do you mean, Senator Obama's not smart and curious. Didn't you notice how well he listened to Senator McCain's solutions, and how clearly he expressed his agreement?
First of all, your last line was totally uncalled for.
Second of all: Obama's "support" for execution for child rapists came concurrently with his "support" for Second Amendment rights. After having said that he believes that the D.C. gun ban meets constitutional muster, and not expressing other reservations about it, he stuck his finger up in the air, tested the political winds, and came out in support of the Heller decision. Sounds fishy. That was concurrent with his criticism of the Kennedy decision, but he has not expressed any intention of getting judges like Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts - who, presumably, vote the way he likes - on the bench. Go figure.
As another commenter mentioned above, almost 40% of Americans who file a tax return have no income tax liability. I would also point out that we should not expect a leopard to change its spots: Barack Obama, while in the Senate, has consistently voted to raise taxes on the middle class (i.e. those earning $34,000/year and above), or has refused to lower their taxes.
This nonsense about lowering taxes for 95% of Americans is purely an attempt to buy votes - it's mathematically impossible (as some 40ish% don't pay taxes anyway) and is diametrically opposed to his previous voting patterns.
Campaign finance reform? You're kidding me, right? We're talking about the same guy who took a pledge to take public financing, then broke that pledge?
Also, the MSM is not so much liberal as they love abortion (It's their sacrament, cause they're all godless heathens!). If she'd worn one of those "I got an abortion " T-shirts They'd have loved Palin and not looked into her background at all despite public desire!
God, I love speculating based on anecdotal information! Makes me feel alive!
Re turning out the base, sure. I should have been more clear that I meant, "who will be swayed one way or another by the VP debate?" The religious right folks who got excited about Palin when she was named, I'll wager, will still be at least mostly excited by her no matter how well or badly she does. But they won't be enough.
These are the same sick people who, like Obama, think that people who engage, voluntarily, in an act that is designed to reproduce human life are being PUNISHED when the purpose of that act is achieved, yet not desired.
If that happened to his daughter, he would rather have that baby be scrambled like an egg, vaccumed out, and deposited into a biowaste container, then see the baby born.
That, my friend, is SICK and DISGUSTING.
If I have to choose between dating a terrorist-loving big-spending socialist and a small-government fiscal conservative, I'd much rather go with the latter.
And there is nothing cheap about an Obama presidency.
So, in a way, you are right.
All I know is if Obambi is elected then we will all be subject to Sharia law and have forced gay marriages and abortion parties. And these beliefs are 100% internally consistent.
See red herring
Surely it's allowed to plead in the alternative!
Kristol had more to say on that during yesterday's Fox News Sunday, in response to a question from host Chris Wallace:
Not a "glowing article," (just a first-person narrative of a woman's abortion decision), not a "columnist" or anyone that any of us knows ("Amy Richards"?). Again, in support of your assertion that a woman politician who spoke publicly of her abortion would be a "media darling", I ask that you give a single example.
(Something like 20-25% of all pregnancies end in abortion; if embracing one's abortion was the ticket to media fawning, surely you should be able to come up with dozens of "abortion celebrities"!)
That's the opposite of what you said in the post to which I responded. Make up your mind, and then we'll talk.
It does seem to be a fact that many conservatives were unimpressed and uninspired by McCain until he picked Palin, and then got excited. I'm just impressed by how easy they were won over. But I'm sure she'll do a great job at state funerals.
Krystal→ Kristol.Hopefully she won't be speaking at McCain's.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/724/
Sarcastro (d. 2008), comedian commenter. Couldn't keep up with Leftists talking points as their absurdity met and surpassed his own. A bronzed fake beard commemorates his burial plot somewhere in the waters of the Florida Keys. Services to be held in the former The Onion building.
Everytime a liberal meets a good argument, they make fun of the argument with tangential attacks so that they are not forced to actually answer it.
If Palin does well against Biden, this is all going to look extremely stupid. I would say there's a greater chance that Biden sticks his foot in his mouth than that Palin comes across as dumb.
The real story is the embarassment that Biden is. Of course the media is never going to cover this. Seriously, the guy can't go for two days without some kind of gaffe. Highlights include yelling at the guy in the wheelchair to stand up, bragging about how Obama's tax cuts were good because everyone could by a toaster, ranting like a survivialist about Obama better not take my guns, denouncing one of Obama's own ads. You'd think the media would be all over this just for its pure entertainment value, but liberal bias trumps all.
I can buy the argument that taken in isolation Palin is not qualified to be VP. I cannot buy it coming from the same people who think Obama is qualifed to to be Prez.
Sure, she may not have been the best candidate for VP. But it is done, and changing horses now will not just turn off all those voters motivated by her being on the ticket, but would also paint McCain as having made a bad choice.
What is interesting however is that many of these same people who are pushing McCain to dump Palin, think that gaffomatic Joe Biden is just fine. Some of what she has said might be questioned. A lot of what he has said for years, and in particular, since nominated, has been flat wrong. Anyone for FDR giving a presidential speech on TV right after the 1929 Stock Market Crash? Hillary being the better VP candidate than he is? Should I go on?
Of course they do. He's gaffe-proof.
Get to it, people!
this is exactly what people hate Bush for! And Reagan, and Tom DeLay!
Wow, liberals just hate everyone cause of they life they live!
I'm sure it has nothing to do with policy.
I'm mostly just perplexed by that. She may or may not be qualified, but to judge by the MSM's approach you'd think she'd been unmasked as David Duke's chief of staff or something.
Obama could simply continue W.'s borrow and spend policies.
If Palin aborted her kid, she'd be a media darling right now.
That doesn't jibe with the positive press "Life Goes On," received, for depicting a family with real-life Down person Chris "Corky" Burke. Two-time Tony Award winner Patti LuPone played his mother.
"I find it funny that Adler can serious contemplate the possibility of "a strong Palin performance" while at the same time accusing Post of wishful thinking."
I know that the concept might be difficult to wrap your brain around, but Adler (and I) not only contemplate the possibility of "a strong Palin performance" but also of a strong Palin candidacy, and not just this one. It would therefore follow that Post is thinking wishfully that she would so easily be eliminated.
I do think having ex-Bush advisors prep her might qualify as the stupidest move in the history of American politics (I had previously assumed it was Schmidt messing her up, but this makes far more sense). One would have to go back to the Harding Administration to find a more inept communications strategy than the Bushies employed.
BTW, I'm voting for Obama because I bet my mom I would if Rove got anywhere near a McCain/Palin campaign. I lost the bet.
I was talking about policy. Like abortion, for example.
It's really bad to use that same closed/defensive strategy in trying to educate your fresh new face of the party who can already speak on her own and is not a policy wonk or souless automaton.
Palin responded to a question about the economic recovery plan, which was hashed out overnight. She answered, but she made it clear that she was then going to concentrate on the Blue Star Moms, “Bailout? Ok? Then I’m going to talk to these gals whose sons are also in the service. But, thankful that John McCain is able to have some of those provisions implemented in that Paulson proposal to have more sound oversight,” Palin said. “Taxpayers aren’t going to be assumed to be called upon to bail out so I’m glad that John McCain’s voice is heard and his leadership too.”
Bailout? Ok? Taxpayers aren't going to be assumed to be called upon to bail out? No? Who is going to be 'assumed to be called upon' (whatever that even means)? The Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus?
I haven't heard or read the interview, but one of the theories behind a plan is: the assets' risk is unknown, and nobody really wants to touch them, so government sets a price by buying the assets, which then signals the market in ways which they can then assess its risk reliably, and then the government can sell the assets back off. That is, it's an acceptance of risk (specifically, the risk of the asset being worth more or less when it's sold) instead of a simple infusion of money -- though it will almost certainly end up as a cash infusion (seniorage) with the added benefit of risk adjustment.
Thing is, nobody knows how much it will really cost if that's how it goes down; and that assumes that it's going to happen.
It's true, I'm no Palin fan, and I do not have my finger on the pulse of anyone's thinking . . . but it's not really true that I was never a potential McCain supporter. I was a (strong) supporter of McCain's during the Republican primaries, and I was genuinely delighted that he won the nomination; I actually had not decided for whom to vote in the general election until the Palin nomination, which I believed, and still believe, was an irresponsible, outrageous, and unpatriotic act on McCain's part. I haven't voted for a Democratic candidate for President since Jimmy Carter (a vote I admit I regretted later on), but even if McCain hadn't acted like a complete jackass last week during the runup to the bailout, he'd lost my vote.
I was a (strong) supporter of McCain's during the Republican primaries
No offense, but those things do go hand-in-hand for a reason. In general, the conservatives I know tend to not like McCain in principle -- just like in 2000 -- but some of his strategy (including Palin) warms him to them.
But taxpayer money is still being spent, regardless of whether it's a "simple infusion" of money, or of whether we make the money back. And I'm sure Palin doesn't understand any of this.
I doubt it. But she clearly won a lot of credit with her base by not aborting Trig. And she's very savvy about this; she presented him to press photographers when he was 3 days old. This quickly led to the obvious headlines. I think using an infant as a political prop is a deeply despicable act.
Lots of people are focusing on how wonderful it is that she didn't abort Trig. No one seems to want to focus on how un-wonderful it was to get pregnant with him in the first place, given that they already have four kids, and given that her age meant heightened risk, and given that the number of parents willing to stay home and take care of an infant (let alone a special-needs infant) is zero.
Todd and Sarah getting pregnant with Trig was just as irresponsible as what Levi and Bristol did. The irresponsibility was compounded when the parents decided to not adjust their lives to allow a parent to be home with him. It's simply wrong:
Palin's failure to act responsibly as a parent is my business because Palin is applying for a job that requires a person to act responsibly. Someone who puts their personal ambition ahead of their kids is also going to put their personal ambition ahead of their country.
It's not that a mom needs to be home. It's that a parent needs to be home. Todd and Sarah are jointly responsible for these poor choices. But only one of those two is asking me for a job.
Astroturf! But you left out the part about being a Concerned Christian.
That reminds me. What ever happened to McCain's effort to get people to spread his talking points on blogs?
"And when you are given a blank 9-11 sort of check to take action, your strategy keeps your domestic adversaries (liberals and moderates)"
Except liberals and moderates weren't his domestic adversaries yet post-9/11. The left were, sure, but he could have kept them somewhat isolated by playing nice with liberals and especially moderates and/or attacking the left directly to heighten the contrast. He (or likely rather Cheney and the communications team) decided otherwise.
Bad move. For the R's and the country.